M/S Laxmi Prasad Joshi vs. The Commissioner State Tax
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Laxmi Prasad Joshi, assailed an order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, concerning the Financial Year 2020-21. The petitioner's primary contention was that the show-cause notice dated 14.11.2024 did not fix a date for personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement. The respondents, the Commissioner, State Tax, Headquarters, Dehradun, and another, argued that the writ petition was filed with a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 14.02.2025. The Court noted that the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice and the lack of any such opportunity before the order was passed were not disputed.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the Act. The Court found that the show-cause notice did not fix a date for personal hearing, nor was such an opportunity provided to the petitioner at any stage before the impugned order was passed. This omission was considered a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court overruled the objection regarding the slight delay in the petitioner approaching the Court. The order dated 14.02.2025 was quashed. The Court directed the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm, strictly in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and no other issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to the absence of a fixed date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, thereby violating Section 75(4) of the Act? The petitioner argued that the failure to fix a date for personal hearing in the show-cause notice, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the Act, renders the subsequent order invalid. They contended that this omission constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the writ petition suffers from a delay, as the impugned order was passed on 14.02.2025 and the petition was filed later. They did not dispute the petitioner's assertion regarding the absence of a personal hearing date in the show-cause notice.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (PER: SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner- firm and Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ Revenue Department.
The petitioner-firm has assailed the order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017, in respect of Financial Year 2020-21. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that, in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner-firm dated 14.11.2024, no date of personal hearing was fixed, although it is a mandatory requirement under
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.